Response to interpellation 2023/24:324 on the EU summit and economic support to Ukraine
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the Commission's decision to make parts of the frozen funds available to Hungary was based on factual and legally correct grounds as the country fulfilled certain conditions 1 2. M considers that most of the funds remain frozen due to the rule of law principle and that the ongoing processes reinforce the EU's ability to protect these values 1. M emphasizes that the principles of the rule of law are fundamental to the union's functioning and that the government will continue to stand up for these 3 4. M considers it a historic decision that all 27 leaders agreed that Ukraine shall open membership negotiations 2. M argues that the Prime Minister acted constructively to reach an agreement 1 and succeeded in starting membership negotiations, securing Ukraine support and cutting other expenses by 90 percent 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)
Madam Speaker! Matilda Ernkrans has asked the Prime Minister how the Prime Minister views the Commission's actions and the assessment it has made regarding the payment of support to Hungary, and whether the Prime Minister intends to take any action based on his view on the issue. She has also asked what consequences the Prime Minister sees the decision will have for the EU's future opportunities to uphold requirements for the rule of law in the member states, if the Prime Minister intends to take any initiatives to ensure that the requirement for the rule of law is upheld, and how the Prime Minister acted at the EU summit to push for a settlement for the 26 countries that were in agreement.
The interpellation has been handed over to me.
Regarding the Commission's decision on 13 December, it concerned funds from the structural funds that were frozen against the background of Hungary not fulfilling certain of the necessary conditions for obtaining funding from the funds. The decision to make parts of the funds available was based on the Commission's assessment that Hungary had fulfilled certain conditions regarding the independence of the judiciary. The decision does not mean that money is paid out, but that Hungary is given the opportunity to request reimbursement for costs incurred in approved projects. The funds that were made available amount to approximately 10.2 billion euro out of a total of just over double that. The Commission notes that the decision can be changed if Hungary is no longer judged to fulfill the current conditions.
The Commission also announced on 13 December that there was no reason to propose any change regarding the 6.3 billion euro being withheld as a result of the Council's decision according to the conditionality regulation. The funds to which Hungary is entitled through the EU's recovery fund also remain frozen. Hungary has been assigned 27 milestones that must be met before it can become relevant to change this.
The Government assumes that the Commission's decision on 13 December was made on objective and legally correct grounds. The Government notes that approximately 21 billion euro of potential Hungarian EU funding remains frozen for reasons related to the rule of law principle and other fundamental values. Furthermore, several other proceedings are ongoing in the Council, the Commission, and the Court of Justice of the EU aimed at ensuring that these values are upheld in Hungary and all other Member States.
The Government naturally views every infringement of the rule of law principle and other fundamental values within the Union very seriously. However, the decision on 13 December has in no way changed the conditions for the possibilities to safeguard the rule of law principle. On the contrary, the various processes underway strengthen the EU's collective capacity to act in protection of the rule of law principles and the Union's fundamental values. The Government has been and will remain active within relevant parts of this work. This includes, among other things, the rule of law dialogue in the Council, ongoing Article 7 processes, as well as being active in the court proceedings where the Swedish voice was needed.
During the meeting in the European Council, the Prime Minister acted actively and constructively based on the position anchored in the Riksdag to reach an agreement that all countries could stand behind. In order to manifest the strong solidarity with Ukraine that exists within the EU, a solution was reached that all countries except Hungary could accept. Even here, the Prime Minister acted based on the position anchored in the Riksdag in support of a settlement between 26 member states. It largely concerned reducing the size of the budget review, increasing the degree of reprioritizations to finance new commitments, and finding a construction for interest payments on the joint borrowing under the EU's recovery fund that could be accepted by all.
When the pieces began to fall into place and a preliminary agreement was on the table, it was crucial that the government could secure the Riksdag's support during the consultation that was carried out with short notice and in the middle of the night with the EU Committee.
Thanks to these efforts, an agreement was reached on a revision of the EU's long-term budget with support for Ukraine that 26 countries, including Sweden, could support. The European Council will convene again on February 1 and then attempt to reach the necessary consensus.
Matilda Ernkrans (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, EU Minister Jessika Roswall, for the answer!
I had submitted the interpellation to the Prime Minister. One reason for that was that I was somewhat provoked when the Prime Minister once again did not participate in the chamber to report back after the latest EU summit. What I heard then was that the Prime Minister was ill, and no one can do anything about that. However, I was somewhat provoked when I saw that just a few days later the Prime Minister had a live press conference where he appeared energetic. Therefore, I submitted this interpellation to get a new chance to hear from the Prime Minister how the government acted. I do, however, thank you for the answer from the EU Minister, who now answered on behalf of the Prime Minister.
The important thing here is not whether I was provoked or not by the Prime Minister's lack of engagement. The important thing is that the support for Ukraine must be unwavering from Sweden and the EU. The fight in the Ukrainian trenches is not only about Ukraine's freedom and democracy but also about the security of all of Europe, Sweden, and the Swedish people.
That the EU leaders, including the Prime Minister, at the latest EU summit could not reach an agreement on the support for Ukraine puts both Ukraine and Europe in an extremely dangerous situation. The attempt by the EU Commission to get Hungary to lift its veto against the economic support to Ukraine by making it possible to pay out 10 billion euros in frozen EU funds to Hungary failed, and the 26 EU countries that were in agreement never proceeded with a settlement without Hungary. What does the EU minister think about that?
The Commission's decision to make it possible to pay out support to Hungary also raises questions about the future of the conditionality mechanism that the Social Democratic government, under the leadership of EU Minister Hans Dahlgren, was involved in negotiating. The conditionality mechanism is about EU money not being paid out to countries that do not live up to basic democratic principles. It is a question of legitimacy for the entire EU project. I want to assert that it is also an important issue for the credibility of our EU cooperation, not least when Sweden and all other EU countries now go to the EU elections on June 9.
We Social Democrats and Jessika Roswall's party, the Moderates, are actually in agreement. We think alike on the importance of the principles of the rule of law. At the same time, we know that the government's friends, the Sweden Democrats, and their party friends in Europe often question the need for the rule of law principle. Therefore, I wonder how the EU Minister, based on the answer she just gave, can feel so secure that this principle is not threatened.
Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Matilda Ernkrans, both for the interpellation and for the speech! Both contained a great deal of questions.
I can begin this contribution by speaking about what Matilda Ernkrans and I are very much in complete agreement on, that is, the importance of the fundamental values and the principles of the rule of law in the union. The second part of the questions concerned a lot the support for Ukraine, where we also, admittedly, share the same view.
The principles of the rule of law are an immensely important issue for this government, for all our parties, and for the country Sweden, and they have been so for a long time. The principles of the rule of law are the foundation of the trust that is necessary for the union we have to be able to function, for the internal market to function, for us to be able to use our common budget in the right way, and for our legal cooperation to function across the entire union. They are also a guarantee that our citizens and companies are treated equally across the entire union. Therefore, I now place great emphasis on working with these issues.
Just as Matilda Ernkrans knew, it was one of the Swedish presidency's priorities. That somewhat answers the question of whether the issue is threatened. That is why we all must work on the issue all the time. During the Swedish presidency, we organized hearings under Article 7 against both Poland and Hungary, to give other member states the opportunity to ask questions but also to give those states the opportunity to respond.
When it comes to the situation for the principles of the rule of law, there is reason to be concerned generally speaking. Therefore, I mean that the next commission must also have the principles of the rule of law very high up on the agenda.
At the same time, the EU, which Matilda Ernkrans has touched upon slightly, has introduced new tools as they have come along to protect the principles of the rule of law. I mentioned Article 7. It is something that we continue to work on and that the Belgian presidency is working on. We also have infringement proceedings in the Court of Justice of the EU. The Swedish government does not hesitate to intervene at those times when we feel that Swedish views are needed regarding the respect for the fundamental values. Matilda Ernkrans mentioned the conditionality mechanism, which has existed for a while and which, as said, provides the possibility to freeze and withhold common funds.
Those things have had an effect. We saw that, for example, in the Polish election where frozen assets were one of the issues on the voters' agenda.
We have also seen, which for me brings to mind the questions that Matilda Ernkrans has asked in the interpellation, that Hungary has implemented a number of changes to its judiciary in order to be able to receive some of the money. In accordance with the changes that Hungary made, the Commission took a decision on this in the middle of December. In the same way that Hungary implements its changes and follows the rules, the Commission shall follow its own rules. That is right and proper.
This is an issue that we are following closely. I and the government will continue to ensure that the principles of the rule of law are held high on the EU's agenda and that we use all available tools to protect our values and our taxpayers' money.
Matilda Ernkrans (S)
Madam Speaker! The question that the Minister did not quite grasp was one of the questions in my interpellation: How is the government and the Prime Minister acting to push for a settlement between the 26 countries that were in agreement? What does the EU Minister think about the fact that a settlement between the 26 countries was never put forward?
I return to what concerns the principles of the rule of law and the EU's common values. The Commission's attempt to get Hungary to lift its veto on the economic support by offering the possibility of paying out 10 billion euros of frozen EU funds to Hungary failed. Hungary did not actually agree to a settlement but stood firm on its veto.
The Minister acknowledges that there is reason to be concerned about the principles of the rule of law. When the EU Commission and the EU's leaders allow Hungary to play this role and use that type of pressure to try to obtain money that they actually should not have access to if they do not follow the rule of law principles, the person who was initially concerned can feel even greater concern for how fundamental values are upheld in our EU cooperation.
On that, one can add what I say regarding the Swedish government. The Social Democrats and the Moderates agree on this. But the government, which is led by Moderates, has decided to govern with the Sweden Democrats, whom one negotiates with. And the Sweden Democrats and their party friends in Europe repeatedly question the principles of the rule of law. Then my question becomes even more pressing. How does Sweden and the Swedish government act to ensure the EU's common values and to uphold the principles of the rule of law? It is fundamental for the common EU project.
The EU Minister says - and the State Council responds in the Prime Minister's stead - that the government is concerned about the principles of the rule of law, and one is in a cooperation with a party whose party friends out in Europe repeatedly question the principles of the rule of law.
The Prime Minister therefore participated in an EU summit where 26 countries agreed to support Ukraine with the economic support needed for their own security, peace, and freedom, but also for the security of all of Europe and Sweden. What was it then that caused the Prime Minister not to act so that a settlement could be produced that the 26 countries agreed upon regarding supporting Ukraine with those funds? Instead, one allows oneself to be held captive by Hungary's agenda, where they are constantly trying to play a game in European cooperation to their own advantage.
If one is worried about the principles of the rule of law and wants to support Ukraine with new money, why then has one not spent the Christmas and New Year holidays negotiating a solution that involves money being given to Ukraine from the 26 countries that were in agreement?
ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN
Since a meeting in the chamber should not last longer than until 23:00, I would like to inform that all interpellations on the agenda will not have time to be answered today. I can therefore already now announce that interpellation 335 by Adrian Magnusson, Socialdemokraterna, on the chaos on the E22 and interpellation 336 by Per-Arne Håkansson, Socialdemokraterna, on the impact of war and crisis preparedness on private households will be answered at a later time.
Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the repetition of the question. It is correct that it is in the interpellation.
I have described in my response that what Matilda Ernkrans claims is not true, that we other 26 member states would be trapped when it comes to these funds. And I also tried, in the Prime Minister's stead, to describe this in the report here in the chamber. The Prime Minister was, as mentioned, ill at that time and had also offered the Riksdag to take the report at another time. But that is another matter.
What I tried to say in my answer now is that when it comes to the money that the Commission has made decisions on – I assume that it is correct and proper and that the rules we have are followed, that is, when it comes to the principles of the rule of law – it concerns funds from the structural funds and that Hungary has made changes. As has been said, they have fulfilled the necessary conditions that the Commission has set up, and the Commission's assessment is that they have ensured that their legal system is independent. That is what I said in my answer. It stands in the Commission's decision. And it is not something that makes 26 other member states trapped. They are two different things.
The Commission makes its decisions. We think that is good. I and the Swedish government do not interfere in them. One can, of course, appeal them if there is reason to do so, but I assume that the commission makes the right and correct decisions.
When it comes to the support for Ukraine, it can absolutely be described as a failure, or it can be seen as a historic decision that all 27 leaders agreed to grant Ukraine to open membership negotiations.
That it is important to make that decision, Matilda Ernkrans and I are in complete agreement. The government has been extremely clear from day one when that discussion started, that is to say in July last year, that the only reason to conduct the review was to secure the EU's long-term economic support to Ukraine.
It is also an important message, I want to say in this chamber, that the Swedish Riksdag stood united on the issue. It will, of course, help us forward in the negotiations.
The proposal that we agreed upon in December is still on the table. It concerns 50 billion euro until 2027. Just as Matilda Ernkrans, I cannot emphasize enough the seriousness of the fact that this decision is actually reached because funding is needed.
It is also known that the next meeting is on February 1. I think it is a very short time given that the previous meeting was in the middle of December. The leaders are to meet next week. How it goes I do not know yet, but Matilda Ernkrans and others have the opportunity next week when we have an open consultation to ask the Prime Minister how far the work ahead of the meeting has progressed.
I want to say again clearly that the task the Prime Minister had from the Riksdag was to ensure that support for Ukraine is arranged, to start the membership negotiations, and to keep the size of the budget down. The Prime Minister did all of this at the European leaders' summit, and I am very pleased about that. As we said, we will have to see how it goes on February 1. My and the government's focus is to ensure that we reach an agreement with 27 countries. It is important for Ukraine for many reasons.
I think Matilda Ernkrans is mixing apples and pears when she says that one proceeds with a solution that 26 states agree on. It would not help Ukraine in the short-term perspective, because they need the money now – and that is why it is important that all 27 make the decision.
Matilda Ernkrans (S)
Madam Speaker! In the absolute last sentence, the Minister said something that has not been said to the Swedish Riksdag before. It was that the government thinks it was not a feasible path that the 26 countries which had agreed on economic support to Ukraine already during the last EU summit could have spent the Christmas and New Year holiday period finalizing such a decision and much more quickly been able to provide Ukraine with economic support. This is new information to the Swedish Riksdag.
What I and others have wondered about is what has caused Sweden as a country not to push for Ukraine to receive its money much earlier. Instead, the choice was made to wait until next week and February 1, when there is a new EU summit. It would of course be very good if all EU member states could agree on this, but Hungary has repeatedly shown that they are not prepared to support Ukraine with new money if they do not get anything in return.
One can see it as an event that speaks for itself that the EU Commission, before the last EU summit, decided to release funds to Hungary. One would have gladly wanted to have them the day before the EU summit when the decision on economic support to Ukraine was to be made and that Ukraine should be allowed to proceed with its accession negotiations. It is perhaps an event that speaks for itself.
We hope that the EU countries can agree on this on February 1, but questions obviously remain. Will new concessions be made to Hungary? What is being negotiated? What has Hungary demanded, and how has the government acted?
Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)
Madam Speaker! Matilda Ernkrans seems to believe that the conclusion that 26 countries agreed on something that was good regarding a support – a proposal that is still on the table – is a faster and better announcement than that 27 countries agreed. I do not share that view, and that is what I said.
I, the government, the Prime Minister, the commission and all other 26 member states are working to reach an agreement between 27 member states. But what is on the table and what we 26 countries agree on is not actually being negotiated now, but it is about getting all 27 to agree. It is the rapid support to Ukraine. That all 26 countries agree on.
I want to say again, regarding what Sweden did, that the Prime Minister delivered with the announcement. He ensured that membership negotiations were started; that was decided. Furthermore, the 26 countries agreed on Ukraine support, and they managed to cut the other expenses that the commission had proposed by 90 percent. It was an immensely successful negotiation.
When the prime ministers met in December, there were no conditions for reaching an agreement. I regret that. I hope that the possibility will exist on February 1. It is very important for the government and something we will not compromise on - and it is important for Ukraine. We know that. The situation is, as said, acute.
Madam Speaker! I want to return to the question that was discussed a short while ago. The Government will continue to stand up for the principles of the rule of law and that they are respected throughout the union. And as I said in a previous contribution: We have a broad toolbox and are trying to use all the tools available.
Next week, the Prime Minister will come to the Riksdag's EU Committee to provide information on the process ahead of the extra summit being held next week.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.